Case 3:16-cv-00006-DJH Document 17 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 92

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
Electronically filed
JOHN DAVID BOGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM H. MERIDETH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-6-DJH

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes now the Plaintiff, through counsel, and files this supplemental pleading in support
of his Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This supplemental pleading is
intended to draw the Court’s attention to a cause of action recently filed in the United States
District Court District of Connecticut. That case, 3:16-cv-358, was filed after the parties in this
case had submitted briefs addressing Defendant’s argument that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. The issues in the Connecticut District Court case are similar to those
addressed here and support Mr. Bogg’s argument for Federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The Connecticut District Court case is styled Michael Huerta, Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, v. Austin Haughwout and Bret Haughwout.

The FAA is seeking

enforcement of an administrative subpoena against the respondents. The subpoena relates to two
videos of the respondent flying his drone approximately five feet above the ground. In one video
the drone is firing a semi-automatic pistol. In the other, it is operating a flame-thrower. The FAA
is arguing that the UAS, even though operating very close to the ground, is an “aircraft” subject to
its authority and safety regulations. (Doc 11, Page 1). The respondents have refused to comply

 Case 3:16-cv-00006-DJH Document 17 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 93

with subpoena, arguing, in part, that the FAA investigation rests on an unreasonable construction
of ‘aircraft’ and, therefore the subpoenas are an unreasonable exercise of the agency’s authority.
(Doc 15, Page 1).
The Haughwout pleadings are directly relevant to the subject matter jurisdiction issue
currently before the court.

The current dispute turns on whether a controversy has arisen that

cannot be resolved without the Court addressing a critical federal question – the balance between
the protection of private property rights versus the safe navigation of federal airspace. The
Haughwout dispute places this critical question in the context of an administrative investigation.
It highlights, as argued by Mr. Boggs — and now the FAA — that questions involving the
regulation of the flight of unmanned aircraft should be resolved by Federal courts.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court consider this
supplemental pleading and the attached exhibits in support of his previously filed Response in
Opposition.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ William L. Campbell, Jr.
James Mackler (admitted pro hac vice)
William L. Campbell, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
FROST BROWN TODD, LLC
150 3rd Ave., South, Suite 1900
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 251-5550
Facsimile: (615) 251-5551
jmackler@fbtlaw.com
ccampbell@fbtlaw.com
Thomas C. Gleason
FROST BROWN TODD, LLC
400 W. Market Street, 32nd Floor
Louisville, KY 40202-3363
Telephone: (502) 589-5400
Facsimile: (502) 581-1087
tgleason@fbtlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

 Case 3:16-cv-00006-DJH Document 17 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 94

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 9th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing
to the following:
D. Chad McCoy
114 South 3rd St.
Bardstown, KY 40004
cmmcoy@mccoyandhiestand.com
(502) 233-8385
s/ William L. Campbell, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiff

0132027.0631787 4847-0338-1042v1